Comments on: Why Science Can’t Replace Religionhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/08/24/why-science-cant-replace-religion/
Fri, 09 Dec 2016 11:51:00 +0000hourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.4.5By: gwaltluvhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/08/24/why-science-cant-replace-religion/#comment-8790
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:17:00 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/?p=2193#comment-8790I see religion and science as being part of one’s world view. They are interchangeable. One reflects reality more than the other, but still useful in understanding one’s place in the universe. But a person has to have a worldview, it can’t be empty.
]]>By: gwaltluvhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/08/24/why-science-cant-replace-religion/#comment-8789
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:13:00 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/?p=2193#comment-8789“Science can’t replace religion.” Not true. Religion is PART of a worldview. Science can replace religion as part of someone’s worldview. But a person HAS to have a worldview of some kind. It can’t be empty. 97% of elite scientists are atheists. The reason is that they don’t cling to religion is that they take great comfort in understanding how the world works. It stands to reason that the majority of ordinary people are scientifically illiterate, and attribute everything they don’t understand to a magic wizard in the sky.
]]>By: Donny Danielsonhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/08/24/why-science-cant-replace-religion/#comment-7396
Sun, 24 May 2015 22:55:00 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/?p=2193#comment-7396Science can explain much. however, because it can not explain EVERYTHING; especially the question “why” we exist, (not to mean, why we “biologically” exist) – but the “why” of EVERYTHING existing. to know our true conceptual origin. this answer is unknown, & many religious beliefs at least provide a potential answer to this ultimate question! (mind you, there is no more ultimate question) it is an intangible problem, & science inherently hates that; its inability to measure & quantify! But, oh well, life is complicated. Try to explain some of the most profound human characteristics such as conscience & consciousness. Humans are aware of this intangible, yet they (these “feelings”) seem very real. Indeed, these “feelings” usually illicit/affect action. However science can not explain such a powerful “thing”. Science does attempt to explain conscience & the (our knowing of) consciousness. But science is severely inhibited to come to a definitive answer “why”. So, it really is okay to take a leap of faith of the complete unknowing; (read: God/ultimate creator). Does someone rush into a burning building to save a human being because they believe it is the logical thing to do.. or that they are immune from the effect of fire? No. They rush into the fire because of an almost unfailing faith, “love” of fellow man, & omnipresent conscience. Simple. illogical. wonderful. unproveable.
]]>By: Garyhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/08/24/why-science-cant-replace-religion/#comment-5653
Thu, 26 Feb 2015 23:26:00 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/?p=2193#comment-5653I thought it would be interesting to look at the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus from the orthodox/conservative/evangelical Christian stand point, excluding, however, baseless assumptions. I am excluding fundamentalists in this discussion because fundamentalist Christian views are so extreme that it would be hopeless to try and reconcile them with the actual evidence. Some fundamentalists would probably believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John sat down and wrote their gospels within ten minutes of the Ascension.

A. The Gospel of Mark

So, let’s start with the first gospel written, as almost all scholars agree: the gospel of Mark. Most scholars believe that it was written sometime between 65-75 AD. So let’s accept an earlier date for the writing of this gospel: mid 60’s, prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.

1. Who wrote Mark: the gospel itself does not tell us. No clear assignment of authorship is given until Irenaeus in the late second century. Yes, Papias in the early second century mentions that someone told him that John Mark had written a gospel, but Papias does not identify the gospel.

2. Where was Mark written? We don’t know. Most scholars do not believe that Mark was written in Palestine, but let’s just say that it was. So the gospel is written 30-35 years after Jesus’ death in 30-33 AD. Historians tell us that the average life span of people in the first century was age 45. How many people would still be alive in 65 AD who had been old enough to witness the crucifixion of Jesus? If you were fifteen in the year 30 AD, you would now be fifty in 65 AD, above the average first century life span. And I would bet that even most fundamentalist Christians would believe that the disciples were older than fifteen at the time of the crucifixion. So let’s say that the disciples of Jesus were between twenty and thirty years old in 30 AD. That would make them fifty-five to sixty-five years old in 65 AD, if they were still alive! We have no proof that any of the disciples were still alive in 65 AD.

3. Even if Mark were written in Palestine, 30 years after the death of Jesus, and there were still people alive who witnessed the resurrection, how soon was the gospel put into public circulation? Maybe the author wrote it for just one wealthy benefactor. Maybe he wrote it just for his small group of Christians, none of whom were old enough to remember the crucifixion. Maybe the gospel was not put into public circulation until after 70 AD. If true, the entire city of Jerusalem has been destroyed, most of its inhabitants are dead or carried off. If there had been a tomb of Jesus, who would now be alive to point out where it was. Remember, all this is assuming that the gospel was written in Palestine or at least circulated in Palestine in the 60’s or 70’s. For all we know, the gospel of Mark was written in Rome and copies of it did not arrive in Palestine until after 100 AD or later! Who would still be alive to say, “Hey, that’s not what happened!”?

4. Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple.

Even if Jesus did prophesy/predict the destruction of the Temple, is this proof that he is God? If someone living in Europe in the mid 1930’s had predicted that Europe would be devastated by a second world war, that Germany would lose, and that Germany would be partitioned as punishment for starting the war, would we believe that this person was God? Just because someone predicts something that comes true is not proof that they are divine.

5. Was the author of Mark an eyewitness to the Resurrection?

The author of Mark never claims to be an eyewitness. He even writes in the third person. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the author was not an eyewitness but to say he was is simply a guess.

B. The Gospel of Matthew

1. Who wrote Matthew? The author does not tell us. The assignment of the apostle Matthew as author of this gospel is not mentioned until the late second century by Irenaeus.

2. Most scholars believe that Matthew was written after Mark and that one can find 70% of the content of Mark within Matthew, often word for word.

3. Where was Matthew written? We have no idea. Again, for all we know, it could have been written in a foreign country, far away from any eyewitnesses to the crucifixion. We have no idea when it was first circulated in Palestine for any elderly eyewitness to say, “Hey. That isn’t what happened!”

4. Was Matthew an eyewitness to the Resurrection?

The author of Matthew never claims to be an eyewitness. He writes in the third person. Again, not proof that he was not an eyewitness but to say he was is no better than a guess. The author of Matthew could simply have been writing a story he had heard third, fourth, or twentieth hand.

C. The Gospel of Luke

1. Who wrote Luke? The author of Luke does not say. No clear assignment of authorship of this gospel is given until the late second century by Ireneaus.

2. Where was Luke written? We have no idea.

3. The author of the Gospel of Luke also borrows heavily from the Gospel of Mark. Approximately 50-55% of the content of Mark can be found in Luke, frequently, word of word.

4. Was the author of Luke an eyewitness?

Luke very clearly states in the first few verses of chapter one that he is not an eyewitness. He states that he carefully investigated the writings of others (Mark and “Q”?) which he didn’t seem to find satisfactory, and that his sources had given him eyewitnesses testimony. However, he does not identify his sources. Were his sources eyewitnesses themselves or were his sources associates of eyewitnesses giving him “eyewitness” testimony from their source or sources, which would make Luke’s information, at best, second hand information.

D. The Gospel of John

Many conservative Christians believe that the author of John infers that he is John, the son of Zebedee, by using the term “the beloved disciple”. I personally (and many scholars) do not think that the author of John is referring to himself as the beloved disciple but is claiming to be recounting the story of the beloved disciple. But let’s assume that the author of the Gospel of John does claim to be John, the beloved disciple. What evidence do we have to determine if his claim is true? Do we have any contemporary Christian or non-Christian testimony that states that John, the son of Zebedee, wrote the Gospel of John? No. We do not. The assignment of authorship of this gospel is not made until the end of the second century, again, by Ireneaus. Papias makes no mention of this gospel.

So just because someone claimed to be John, the beloved disciple, recounting an eyewitness account of the life, death, and supernatural resurrection of Jesus, should we take him at his word?? Many, many “gospels” were floating around the Mediterranean world in the late first and second centuries. The non-canonical Gospel of Peter may have been written even earlier than Mark! Yet, no one, including fundamentalists, believes that the apostle Peter wrote the Gospel of Peter. So, how do we know that the author of the Gospel of John, if he really was claiming to be John, was really John, the beloved disciple, son of Zebedee?? The fact is, that we have no more evidence that John wrote the Gospel of John than we do that Peter wrote the Gospel of Peter, other than Irenaeus’ declaration in 180 AD, in France, one hundred and fifty years after the crucifixion, that the four gospels we have today were written by the persons that he asserts, based upon evidence, that he never gives!

E. What Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus do we have so far?

We have four first century books describing the alleged facts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, but only one, (maybe), claims to be an eyewitness testimony.

Dozens of Romans senators claimed that the first Roman king, Romulus, was snatched up into heaven right in front of their eyes…but no Christian believes this eyewitness testimony.

Thirteen men living in the early nineteenth century signed legal affidavits, swearing under oath, that they personally had seen the Golden Tablets delivered to Joseph Smith by the angel Moroni with their own two eyes, and three of these men signed affidavits that they had seen the angel Moroni himself with their own two eyes…but yet no Christian believes this eyewitness testimony.

Thousands upon thousands of devout, pious Roman Catholics have claimed to have seen the Virgin Mary, alive, often many hundreds or even thousands together in the same location, at the same time…but no Protestant or evangelical Christian denomination believes this eyewitness testimony to be true.

Yet, Protestant/evangelical Christians will believe as absolute fact, that a first century dead man walked out of his tomb after three days of decomposing, ate a broiled fish lunch with his friends, and then levitated into outer space based on the testimony of…one…,possible, eyewitness’ testimony!

F. But what about the Apostle Paul?

The testimony of Saul/Paul of Tarsus is used by Christians as secondary proof of the Resurrection of Jesus. Christians do not allege that Paul saw a resurrected Jesus prior to his Ascension into Heaven. In I Corinthians Paul makes this statement, “Have I not seen the Christ?”

But when Paul says he has “seen” the Christ, what did he see actually? Well, Acts chapter 26 tells us exactly what Paul saw, in his own words: Paul saw a talking, bright light that told him that it (the talking, bright light) was Jesus. And, Paul very specifically states, that he saw this talking, bright light…”in a heavenly vision”.

Talking bright lights are not resurrected bodies and visions are not reality.

Yes, Paul came to believe that Jesus had been bodily resurrected, but there is no evidence that Paul believed this due to seeing a resurrected body. Paul was a Pharisee, and Pharisees believed in a bodily resurrection, so if Paul believed that the talking, bright light speaking to him on the Damascus Road was the executed Jesus, then he would of course believe that he had seen the (bodily) resurrected Jesus, even if he had actually not seen a body, but only a bright light!

Conclusion:

The belief that a first century dead man, named Jesus, walked out of his tomb with a new, superman-like body that could teleport between cities (Emmaus and Jerusalem), could walk through locked doors (the Upper Room), and could teleport into outer space (the Ascension) is based on one alleged eyewitness who wrote a book 40-60 years after the alleged event, whose authorship was not mentioned by any Christian or non-Christian until 150 years later, at the end of the second century, when it was finally called the Gospel of John…and…on the “heavenly vision” of a vision prone Jewish rabbi, Saul/Paul of Tarsus (who also said that he was teleported to the “third heaven”. What other writer of the Bible refers to the concept of multiple heavens?)

And we are asked to believe that based on this “evidence”, Jesus of Nazareth now sits on a throne in the far reaches of outer space, ruling as our Almighty Lord and King of the Universe??

The Romans and Mormons have better evidence for their supernatural tall tales than this tale! It is an ancient legend, folks. A fantastic, supernatural superstition. The chances that it is true are infintisimal.
This supernatural superstition is responsible for the suffering and death of millions of people over the last 2,000 years. it needs to be abandoned.

]]>By: Pearlhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/08/24/why-science-cant-replace-religion/#comment-5131
Wed, 04 Feb 2015 15:16:00 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/?p=2193#comment-5131Great and honest article. Thank you for also pointing out that religious misapplication of doctrine is by no means OK. Even us religious people must come to terms with this fact and need to be humbled by it. Both the believer and non-believers can only move forward by pulling each other along, not pushing us all back.
]]>By: DoesItReallyMatterAnywayhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/08/24/why-science-cant-replace-religion/#comment-3188
Tue, 17 Dec 2013 16:19:00 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/?p=2193#comment-3188You see… right there. You are making assumptions about something without proof. How do you know God created the world? Because it’s in a book? Who wrote the book? People who claim to speak for God. How do you know they weren’t lying? You don’t.

So let’s recap. You made several statements in your comment that are basically saying “my religion is right”.

Well maybe there is no God. Maybe a huge Octopus made the universe. Are you going to defend the Octopus? Why only defend the concept of God? If we are defending religion then why not defend Witchcraft as a religion? How about Pokemon?

Why is God a “him”? Why not a “she”? Why not a “they”? Why not an “it”?

I don’t “believe” your God exist and you can’t “prove” that he does so half your comment is null and void to anyone who doesn’t think God’s existence is a certified fact. If you want to defend “religion” start by not pushing your specific beliefs as universal truths.

You are correct to a degree. Some Atheist are bitter (I’m one on them). It is difficult to be tolerant with people who hold onto things that don’t make any sense to us. I’m learning. Absolutism is disgusting on all sides. I must admit that as long as someone is “damning” me to hell I don’t respect them but now I try not to disrespect them either. I still have a lot of issues with religion but when separated from how I live my life and the rights I have (as well as others) I can tolerate it.

I’ll still continue to fight practices that force it as an absolute like swearing on Bibles in court, the word “God” in the pledge of allegiance, the anti gay marriage agenda, and denying women their rights to their bodies. Those are the big 4 that tick me off in this country because they are imposed on everyone (not just the religious). I have tolerance for religious people but I have no tolerance for that.

]]>By: Anastasia Nemcovahttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/08/24/why-science-cant-replace-religion/#comment-3155
Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:22:00 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/?p=2193#comment-3155I’m religious and I don’t believe everything I read in religious texts, or agree with every action ever done in the name of God, and I don’t have a problem with science, in fact I applaud it for the good it has done. Of the misuses of science; the Nazis still have a following which has spread worldwide and despite some apologies it’s interesting that many Jews don’t feel Germany has done enough to show contrition. The Catholic church is almost verbally beaten to death by atheists who claim it never uses “critical thinking, consideration of evidence and argument” but do you think you can just walk up to a priest, say you’re possessed, or saw Archangel Michael or whatever your story is and have them take you seriously? Religion is far more complex than some people here are making out. I’m actually shocked at the ignorance and shortsightedness of all you self proclaimed logical thinkers. I’ve made some discoveries of my own today and that is that far too many atheists know nothing about history or the actual religions they are trying so hard to bring down, and by that i mean a whole lot more than just this dark evil American version of Christianity that haunts your dreams. Are atheists just a bunch of 90’s kids who aren’t able to forget those heady student days of easy weed, Nine Inch Nails in the CD player and rebelling against the mainstream?
]]>By: Anastasia Nemcovahttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/08/24/why-science-cant-replace-religion/#comment-3154
Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:43:00 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/?p=2193#comment-3154Seeing the exact same things and feeling the power of the greatest artist we could ever know is behind it rather than a series of random incidents?
]]>By: Anastasia Nemcovahttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/08/24/why-science-cant-replace-religion/#comment-3153
Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:33:00 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/?p=2193#comment-3153I like this, it’s balanced and logical, fair to both sides <3
]]>